Administrators Jon Posted August 20, 2013 Author Administrators Share Posted August 20, 2013 Think I've found it. Found some suspicious-ish comparison code. trancexx 1 Deployment Blog: https://www.autoitconsulting.com/site/blog/ SCCM SDK Programming: https://www.autoitconsulting.com/site/sccm-sdk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trancexx Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Great. Btw, it should probably be: if (funcInfo.bValid) { const VARTYPE& vParamType = ... ...to avoid unnecessary copy constructor, no matter how trivial it may be. Also, speaking of this, I have left several non-const correct assignments through the code for safety purposes during future beta testing. Most of these call non-trivial copy constructors so if you want more speed try applying const correctness more rigidly. ♡♡♡ . eMyvnE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff59 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 There's a bug in the Beta presently regarding the $ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY constant. Previously, it was defined only in Permissions.au3. Now (at least as of Beta 17), it is defined in both Permissions.au3 and SecurityConstants.au3. SecurityConstants.au3 is, and has been, a "sub-include" within the Permissions.au3 include. It's resulting in a redefined constant error. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 There's a bug in the Beta presently regarding the $ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY constant. Previously, it was defined only in Permissions.au3. Now (at least as of Beta 17), it is defined in both Permissions.au3 and SecurityConstants.au3. SecurityConstants.au3 is, and has been, a "sub-include" within the Permissions.au3 include. It's resulting in a redefined constant error. Thanks. I don't undrstand the discussion as Permissions.au3 is not part of the Beta. It is true that when we introduce new constants, private include can need adaptation Cheers JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff59 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't undrstand the discussion as Permissions.au3 is not part of the Beta. It is true that when we introduce new constants, private include can need adaptation Cheers JP Doh! Pardon me, I'd forgotten Permissions.au3 was from the Examples forum and not a standard UDF. I'll delete the redundant define from Permissions.au3 and post a msg over in FredAI's thread suggesting he do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Doh! Pardon me, I'd forgotten Permissions.au3 was from the Examples forum and not a standard UDF. I'll delete the redundant define from Permissions.au3 and post a msg over in FredAI's thread suggesting he do the same. You welcome, PLease to help forum users Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts